Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 12 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Editor Retention

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

User talk:71.239.82.39

Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Do you have a nominee to be our Editor of the Week?

Editor of the Week seeks to recognize underappreciated content contributors for their outstanding contributions that, while they may go unnoticed by fellow editors, greatly serve the readers. Right now, our queue of accepted nominations is running a little short. Do you have someone who fits the criteria to be Editor of the Week? If so, consider nominating them here. Thanks! Go Phightins! 12:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop

Dear editors: Lately I've been working on the db-g13 eligible submissions, and so a lot of the comments I've been reading are six months old. I've been seeing a lot of helpful and constructive edits by Rybec. Today I wanted to leave a message about one of these, and I realized that he/she, after being very active, had suddenly stopped editing last March. I'm a little sad that I didn't notice sooner. There's been a lot of discussion about how to improve the behind-the-scenes part of Misplaced Pages so that editors will be happy to contribute, but some editors who seem happy and haven't been "driven away" stop anyway. There could be many reasons not related to Misplaced Pages, but one thing that could be happening is that some editors find Misplaced Pages editing too appealing. I have talked to two people who have stopped editing completely because they were doing so much of it that it was interfering with their real-life goals and obligations. (I'm sure you are all familiar with the essay Misplaced Pages:Wikipediholic). It could be possible to over-encourage some editors to the point where they have to quit, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Maybe some kind of reminder timer or organizer could be attached to the notifications with a customizable message, such as "Time to do your homework/laundry/piano practice" to help editors who get caught up in a particularly interesting article or discussion thread and forget that there is no deadline. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Encouraging admins to enforce Civility/Anti-harassment

As you know, incivility/harassment/wikihounding/off-wiki opposition research/etc. are definitely the biggest turn off to new and old users leading to editors leaving. The refusal of admins to enforce civility and anti-harassment has become a bigger and bigger issue lately. And User Talk:Jimbo Wales has been filled with those discussions the last few months. When a couple related discussions happened at Gender Gap task force page recently all hell broke lose and I'm still not ready to attempt rational discussion there. Is that possible here?

The big question is, to what extent can Wikiprojects organize editors to get admins to enforce clear policy? Obviously, the most direct approach is to encourage editors who value civility and collaboration to become administrators and to remove administrative rights of those with a record of enabling uncivil harassers or of being chronically uncivil themselves. Any thoughts?

My first one is that since this obviously would have to be a word of mouth thing, how about a template editors could put on their pages and share with other editors, something like this (Do not Edit - suggest other language below):

I support a Civil and Harassment free Misplaced Pages. Let's make sure that all of our Wikipedian-approved "representatives" feel and act the same way. Let's have an encyclopedia to be proud of.

Or how about an off-wiki petition? Would that be disallowed? (NO! Not at the White House website!) Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Where's the evidence in support of your opening sentence? Eric Corbett 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse, with Misplaced Pages's consensus model, admins can only enforce what they perceive to be the community's consensus views on standards for collaborative interactions. However, amongst the small subset of Misplaced Pages editors who weigh in on the various discussion boards on this matter, there is a wide diversity of views. Misplaced Pages's decision-making process has a few key shortcomings: the views of the silent majority is largely ignored, since they are unknown, and consensus decision-making, as in the real world, means changes are very difficult to put into effect, as a vocal few can stall progress.

To address the first issue, more editors can be solicited to participate, perhaps through surveys, but it's always a struggle to get people to engage in discussion, particularly in a volunteer community. The second issue though is thoroughly engrained in current Misplaced Pages culture; it has its strengths, particularly when all those involved are willing to compromise, but it has its pitfalls. Even leaving aside the issue of editors unwilling to bend, good-faith editors can fail to reach an agreement simply due to different underlying principles (for example, two editors might disagree on the desired reading level of Misplaced Pages—neither is wrong in their views; they are just proceeding from conflicting base assumptions).

The best approach I can currently think of is to recruit more editors. Get your friends who write well to spend a bit of time improving articles they are interested in. I realize personal recruitment may be a double-edged sword, but I think it is the best way for a good-faith editor to help raise the level of discourse on Misplaced Pages. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also no functional way to remove admin privileges (I don't consider ArbCom to be functional in that regard), which means you will have one class of user that is more or less exempt from the idea. Intothatdarkness 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship does have procedures but the problem, of course, is not enough editors are willing to chirp in on problems. Of course, to enforce it's Terms of Service on Civility the Foundation should be advertising them in the advert place. It should be running ads to encourage editors to speak up for civility and that sort of thing. A lot of people walk away from bullies and I don't blame them. But there's safety in numbers and the numbers already exist, they just haven't felt they had a means of acting together. Canvassing rules were not created to prevent members from helping the foundation from enforcing its terms of service! Ignore all rules that contradict the desire to survive. ("Yes, let that tiger eat you. We don't have civility in this jungle!") Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; my suggestion isn't related to admin privileges. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think IntoDarkness replying to me and me to both of you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that members of the Foundation have engaged in uncivil behavior, I'm not sure that appealing to them would result in much action. I've also seen admins get away with profoundly uncivil behavior without an eye being batted by their fellow admins. But at its core much of this comes down to what is going to be considered uncivil. I, personally, tend to find pedantic babbling and endless blue-linking to be uncivil but don't have as much of an issue with profanity. Others are the opposite. Superficially civil hounding can be extremely detrimental to editor retention, but might not be considered uncivil at first brush. The issue isn't as simple as a banner and a slogan. Intothatdarkness 18:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been bullied and blocked by POV pushing Admins working as a (sort of a) team. They even argued aggressively and very unpleasantly among themselves about how long I should be blocked for. But there wasn't a swear word in sight. I don't go near articles on guns in the USA any more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, it's an individual's choice. I've taken alot of bumps & bruises over the years (of which I'm to blame), however I never have & never will retire. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This thread is pointless without an unarguable definition of incivility. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's always been, and will continue to be, one of the main issues. I'd say close this like the previous discussion. Intothatdarkness 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Civility in any situation is made up of a lot of different factors, as indicated at WP:Civility, including the the severity of the incivility, the number of times it's done, the number of people done to, if done as part of POV pushing or harassment or jealousy or whatever, etc. What we needs is a check list with scores that could be applied to each complaint. Then the over all views of the (assumedly neutral) Admin would be clear. I like drawing those sort of things in tables, so give me 24 hours. This conversation has barely begun. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a scorecard as being anything more than another problem, honestly. Intothatdarkness 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Scores won't work. Some believe swearing is never acceptable. How do you score that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously admins have to be honest about their views on important issues when they are asking to become admins. Maybe admins who are applying need to answer a scorecard too. I guess those of us concerned with these issues have to start paying more attention to the process and who is gets adminships. (And then there's term limits, another great idea.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wannabe Admins should be required to commit to being willing to censure, sanction, block and ban other Admins who misbehave. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What proportion of admins have blocked another admin in the last year? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea, but I've seen none. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There was and attempt (and modified here evidently) to deal with an admin, but it turned into a confusing brouhaha. And I still like that scorecard idea and even got a table matrix built. Will report when done. And someone did report they like the box idea - but not the graphic, which FYI is just a place holder. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the box/template thing too. And yes, the graphic in it (yellow person with confused eyes and deranged smile) looks like someone tried to recover from the after-effects of drinking several pints of scotch, by taking a mixture of LSD and Ecstasy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've read much of this, but there are some seriously flawed ideas flowing here. You are suggesting scorecards for prospective admins, yet we can't get enough people to run for admin to cover admin who leave as it is. And the idea that what is civil and wasn't being obvious is falling victim to our own WP:BIASes. If I've learned anything in the many years that I've been here, it is that civility is usually in the eye of the beholder. A comment that would make one person scream bloody murder at ANI might make another person laugh. You ask for and expect civility, you exercise it, you try to teach it and of course your encourage it, but you can't block someone for incivility because there is no single, worldview definition of "civility" to judge against. It is also just a waste of time, as most incivility is just one or two people get too hot in a discussion. Mediation is all that is needed, if anything, under most circumstances. You can't expect people to participate here without bumping heads, this isn't utopia, it is a place to build a world class encyclopedia. And no, I have never and will never block for simple incivility, even if enwp lost it's collective mind and made it a policy, as admin can't be compelled to use their tools. If you want to start running off our best editors, start blocking for civility, so it would be a nightmare for retention of our best and brightest. Dennis 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to build a consensus among themselves as to what is & isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL. Until that time, differing interpretations by them, will only add to any civility problems in the community. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say it's a multifaceted topic that needs much thought and discussion, if not necessarily here. But I was in a "let's find a simple solution cause can't take it any more" mode when posted. More relaxed now that some admins are dealing with issues of interest. Also have been reading some historical stuff, old cases didn't know enough about, and it all does make the head spin!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are some editors who can only see incivility in others not in themselves and conflate dissent with personal attack. I thought this project was for discussing broad issues not a place to elicit "simple solutions" for individual forum shoppers. J3Mrs (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Every editor retention issue starts as a small issue for one user, yet may be the acorn that grows into a mighty oak. (Who thought this would lead to such a mobilization of energy?) Every solution one editor comes up with for one issue can create ideas that motivate better and larger issues for more users. I still like my proposals, but they were a bit premature and not integrated fully into the larger strategy now under formulation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Admins can't build a consensus among themselves, that would be a gross violation of the trust put in them by the community. Our job is to exercise the will of the community on their behalf, based on our judgement of what the community on a whole wants. The only reason we get the tools is that it isn't practical to give everyone the tools, so the community picks a few of us to act solely on their behalf. Making up rules within a clique of only admin would cause a riot, and rightfully so. I don't want that power anyway. And there is nothing wrong with discussing the ideas here, I've always welcomed discussion on anything that affects users on the whole here, I'm just saying it isn't as simple as it might look at first glance. So discussion is fine. We don't do polls here, we don't make change from here, we simply swap ideas and learn from each other here. WER has no official authority in any way. It is just a big chalk board for anything remotely connected to editor retention. So when I speak, it isn't from a point of authority via WER nor with any extra authority via the admin bit, I'm just another editor, albeit with fairly extensive experience on the topic. Dennis 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - I'm neither advocating or discouraging such a practice by administrators. Merely pointing out, that the Wiki-community is (naturally) less likely to develope a consensus on how to interpret what is/isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL. My years of observation has also given me the impression that if an editor has a strong 'support base' (see Beeblebrox's essay - The Unblockables) she/he will always fair better when his/her conduct is reviewed by the wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an unfairness that is true both on and offwiki. Around here, however, the ones with the biggest fan bases tend to be the ones that are the most prolific at writing prose and not just popular for hanging at the admin boards. That doesn't make it "more fair", just saying it does tie into the idea of a meritocracy, where people that do the most good are often tolerated more when they do singular bad things. I don't think that is all bad. If an editor A spends all their time creating new and useful articles, while editor B just hangs out at ANI offering tidbits of their wisdom, it seems obvious that editor A is more valuable towards the goal of building an encyclopedia than editor B. It also seems natural that people might cut them a little extra slack when they occasionally tells someone to piss off. Lets face it, often, some of the biggest pains to deal with around here are the very same editors who are brilliant and prolific at generating usable content. I don't think it is coincidence, and I would bet a month's salary on it. I won't labor the psychobabble, but the idea that artistic types are temperamental is hardly new. Personally, I would rather have a bunch of sometimes rude people churning out tons of articles than a bunch of polite people who mainly hang out at admin boards and policy pages. Dennis 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with you. Of the Five Pillars, WP:CIVIL is likely the closest to the Real World. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dennis, there are artists and there are people with profound psychological problems. And there are people who add quite a bit of good material, and remove a lot of crap, who take immense amount of grief and incivility from those whose POV differs or just enjoy bugging the editor. In other words, your narrow dichotomy isn't too relevant to the real world of wikipedia editing.

Similarly civility depends not just on what is said or who says it, but the situation: is it trying to bully editors to keep in crappy edits; is it to drive off editors you don't like; is it cause one gets fed up with policy violations and puerile game playing; is it because of sexual or job or internet connection or interpersonal commication frustrations; is it because you are hate/love Media Viewer and are upset about the commotion; etc etc etc - and various combinations of the above. The world is ever so complicated. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why a scorecard can't, in itself, be used to evaluate civility; by its nature, it won't be able to deal with the greater context. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As I posted above. It depends on the size of an editors fan/support base, as to what he/she can or can't do on Misplaced Pages. Truly, that fact is very frustrating, but that's the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we can come up with rough estimates of some items; how many watchers on their pages (though that might be mostly non-fans) or retired editors; how notably often they talk about some form of personal frustration; how many ANIs they brought in what category and why (which is already considered, and not necessarily in a systematic fashion, more by "impressions" or even "accusations"); sure it's going to be subjective, but at least it's an attempt to by pass administrator's personal prejudices and make them look at all the factors.

I know of a situation where two admins said something was OK, someone did it, another one known for being a hard head (and who might have significant POV issues) then blocked the individual. The admin refused to listen to the explanation until the admins themselves pleaded the case on his talk page. That's prejudice and forcing admins to look at multiple angles either a) helps overcome prejudice or b) make prejudice clear if the scorecard is made public. But this is really all just a draft in my head with a matrix to be filled in. Once I start I may decide it's a crazy idea after all. But just in case someone in the real world has used such a system thought I'd put it out there. And I bet I can find some working models online. Maybe from sports. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll neither support or oppose your efforts, of course. It would be unwise of me to get too involved in such endevors :) GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Carol, you and I both want civility here, and we agree that the more civility there is, the better the place is. We both agree that civility should be encouraged, and when someone is incivil, it should be brought to their attention. The problem is, we really can't police it because it isn't black and white. 100 people can read the same sentence, and see it 100 different ways. Personal attacks aren't that way and are usually obvious, but philosophically speaking, the whole concept of "civility" is nebulous to begin with. Now factor in all the different cultures, and you a situation were all you can do is focus on the positive, that is encouraging them to not be rude. As for admins and prejudice and such, Misplaced Pages isn't any different than the real world, except there is NO training for admin, NO singular set of laws, NO singular mind set. To be honest, Carol, admin are 10x more polite and gentile than they were 8 years ago. Anyone that has been here that long knows that they would just block you and tell you to piss off back then, and few would have argued against them. There has been a huge improvement in many areas. But we still screw up regularly because we are human, and this is just a hobby. In short, editing here requires a LOT of tolerance, and policing out all the incivility would cost us most of our best editors, quite literally. Dennis 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• To add, in your example, if I told an editor that an action was ok and another admin blocked them for it, I would instantly unblock them. If that same admin reblocked, they would be dragged to ANI or ARB for wheel warring. Wheel warring is very, very rare because the price is very, very high. I can only guess there is more to the story because that should have been a five minute block/unblock. Every admin I know would have done the same thing, if only to protect the integrity of their previous comment saying an action was ok, ie: the blame should be on the admin, not the editor. Dennis 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If one looks at my brief block-log, one can easily tell, I don't have a strong support/fan base. But, I'm still here, with no intentions of retiring :) GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incivility is when 100 people read something and 90 say "that was uncalled for." I've been called uncivil for reverting a non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement; for polity asking people to review a policy and providing a link; for pointing out that a certain statement was unsupported libel (with someone else removed for just that reason); for asking someone to provide a short summary or quote regarding the point they were making in a too-long-didn't-read-it diff; for bringing an AfD of an obvious attack bio which was removed for that reason. So I certainly know that things most people would consider civil can be considered uncivil. But everyone knows the difference between writing "reverting a non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement" and writing "User:Name is an idiot so I reverted their incredibly asinine non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement" - and then maybe going to the article talk page and their talk page to repeat that statement. Those who do the latter over and over and over again are a problem, especially when they defend such behavior as "free speech." If they do it 2 or 3 times a week, they probably drive off at least one editor a month, and some of those might have developed into good editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocking someone when 100 people read something and 90 say "that was uncalled for" can be an example of cultural bullying and our systemic bias in action. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone an idiot stretches into WP:NPA territory. Those are easy to spot and deal with. It is the small stuff that is hard to nail down, things that one culture might say is just a bit rude, and another says is completely over the line. Just the way Brits and Yanks few phrases like "piss off" or "fuck off" is radically different. Brits see it as rude, some Yanks lose their minds over it. Then again, some people find being told to "fuck off" worse than being called an idiot, even those (by Misplaced Pages standards) it is a lower "offense". Civility enforcement just isn't black and white. I used to think it was moreso black and white until I got the bit, and was answerable for every use of the tools. You don't block over an "offense" that the community is split on. Admin can only act in ways that are clearly within consensus: any use based only on personal opinions is considered abuse, rightfully so. Dennis 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Like nearly always Dennis, you're full of pontificating BS as though you know what you're talking about. You love pies in the sky. Get to concrete examples, here's one: admin The Bushranger blocked me and it was disputed personal opinion (not to mention other aspects of lack of equity or consideration of context). There was no time or standard about your "within consensus". (So by your standard, it was "abuse". Great. You let me know how to follow up on that admin abuse, since no one has responded to my request for help, will ya??) After the block that admin also went to my user Talk and reinforced how he thought I was a "classic narcissist". (Hey Carol, does that meet your 90 outta 100 test!? You and Dennis can work that out please.) Oh! Here's another, is this a personal attack?: "Good luck joining the human race someday." (You gave walls of excusing text to excuse an admin saying that slur to a reg editor. An admin who recently had an ANI CIV case against him which you closed without action, saying in the same timeframe: "I just like the guy." And BTW when I asked that admin on his Talk "what's going on" about another admin calling me the above-mentioned name-slur, he responded with "So what if you're a narcissist?") Oh! How many times has an admin told me to "Fuck off" or "Fuck off my Talk page"? (The way you're pontificating here, is as though what admins do in the face of civility enforcement of the regs. When there is enormous civility infractions committed by admins on this site ... those who are supposedly trained and educated to know better, and "held to a higher standard". I don't know why you are answering Carol as though she is a newbee -- I don't know her level of experience but if she is so green as to warrant your pablum spoon-feeding, then this verifiably belongs at the TeaHouse not on this project page.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And then there's this, a quick unblock of an indef'd editor who threatened violence against wikipedians in his town. Sure, he was provoked, so it's ok!! Of course, us ordinary mortals aren't allowed to see what he really wrote. Read the ani and see if you figure out what it was. I originally thought Jimbo Wales idea of super-administrators to oversee this sort of thing was going to far, but considering the double standards of favored "good old boy" editors vs. those who may not be "clubby" enough or who might have some "disability" (like born female or non-white anglo, for example) get blocked. What are the chances I'll get blocked for saying that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Admin aren't "trained" in any way whatsoever. They are ordinary editors who pass through a crappy and sometimes rigged gauntlet, and if they manage to muster enough votes, they get some extra tools. If you expect them to be any less flawed than the average person, this would be a mistake. They tend to be more experienced than average, but not less flawed. And I don't block anyone for simple incivility, admin or not, for the reasons I already outlined. Sorry if an admin told you to "fuck off", IHTS. I've been told that 2 or 3 times by fellow editors myself, including one whom I knew was socking (CU confirmed) and could have blocked for sockpuppetry, but didn't. They are probably floating around in my archives somewhere, as I didn't even revert. So yes, like I say to others, I ignore a degree of incivility (ie: singular events). You have to be able to take a little heat. I didn't say I liked it, it is just the practical reality. We are all rude sometimes. Dennis 22:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ya couldn't pay me to be an administrator. Mind you, I could never pass an RFA anyways. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to the start of the thread, we can be pretty sure that few newbies are lost to incivility as few are around long enough to encounter it. Reversion of edits and deletion of articles lose us lots of editors, some of whom I believe we would be keeping if our systems and documentation made it clearer that they need to cite sources when they add info to articles if they want their edits to stick. My suspicion is that we lose more newbies to edit conflicts than to incivility, but that would be hard to measure without access to stuff like edit conflicts that may not even be logged. As to how big a factor it is for more active editors, I suspect we need to rerun the survey of former editors and even then there will be skews and people whose perception of others behaviour is less tolerant than it is of their own. It is possible that the way we handle edit warring may lose us more regulars than incivility does. What should reduce the impact of incivility would be to handle more of the feedback for perceived incivility on a one to one basis. In real life if you want someone to change their behaviour or rephrase something you ask them one to one. I suggest we try a little more of that here, especially for those who have enabled email. ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

These are all good comments, especially about making it really clear you need high quality refs. (Eight years ago no one really explained that to me for at least the first year, so I had a lot of naive fun!!)

The problem is the chronically uncivil and the wikihounders who target anyone who annoys them, disagrees with them, has a different POV than them (as a libertarian I've taken a lot of sh*t from a dozen or more editors over the years who hate libertarians), and/or thinks they can have an occasional meltdown and not face the same sanctions as ordinary editors because of some privilege or other. I still think the best solution is just having a number of people call them on it when they do it, not just whoever they are choosing to be uncivil to/wikihound this day, week, month or year. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think WereSpielChequers has nailed the bigger problem, well enough I will just say "me too". And Carol, there is a difference in cronic incivility (hounding, harassing, following you around) and singular acts, when you get in an edit war over a particular sentence and someone says to "piss off". We handle the chronic stuff reasonably well (more or less) at ANI, because you can provide a trail of diffs. It is some paperwork, but I can't see any way around that part of it, and you have to back up claims with diffs. We probably agree on more than you think, including politics. That is the "leave people alone unless what they are doing is genuinely affecting others" part of me when I say to ignore singular acts of incivility. But no, a pattern is something that needs one on one attention, preferably before it becomes harassment. Even then we have to realize that Misplaced Pages just isn't for everyone, and some simply can't be civil enough, and at the same time, others have skin that is just too thin. Dennis 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Dennis above. The important thing is to be able to discuss the issues openly and to get a hearing when you say that someone is aggravating you like crazy for B.S. reasons. While I've only started watching ANI on and off the last 3 or 4 years, I've seen enough cases where small incivility gets knocked and big incivility excused to know we have to keep double standards and cronyism, for whatever reason, a highlighted issue. It makes it easier for the sensible admins to do the right thing, one way or the other, without worrying themselves about getting attacked or worse. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the idea behind WER. We won't always agree, but I started it back in July 2012 because there was no centralized, editor run place to just drink coffee, complain, compare ideas, etc. Some gripe because they don't see concrete things come from WER very often, but I think that misses the point. Here, people let there hair down and just say their opinions without filtering, and that has tremendous value. Everyone is equal at WER: me, you, an IP that posts, etc. I learn something new every week, and it has shaped my approach to being and editor and admin. And still is. I still have a long way to go.... Dennis 20:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey and Mediation

There is mention of a survey of former editors. I think that what is needed is a survey of both current and former editors, to identify at least the view of the current editors on civility enforcement, and what frustrations they have, and the former editors as to what frustrations caused them to leave. I described my ideas on Talk: Jimbo Wales twice, but that page is archived quickly, so I am about to copy my ideas into user space (whether or not that is more visible than archive space). My idea, in response to Jimbo's questions about what the WMF can do, was that, in addition to his idea for the appropriate use of mediators to deal with civility, was that the WMF should use its resources to conduct a properly designed survey. (The WMF has resources. It needs to use them appropriately. Otherwise they are likely to try to fix software that isn't broken.) One question that I have in particular that could be answered by a survey is what the view of the overall community of editors is about the enforcement of civility. We know what the view of the WMF is, that civility is important and is not enforced adequately. We know what the "consensus" at the noticeboards is, that incivility is a low priority and is often overlooked. Where is the disconnect? Does the consensus at the noticeboards reflect the larger consensus of the editorial community, in which case the WMF should realize that the editors like a noisy anarchic workplace, or is the "consensus" of the "community" at the noticeboards unrepresentative, in which case some sort of WMF action is appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that for the WMF to hire and train "community organizers" as super-admins would be disruptive. He has suggested hiring a smaller number of trained mediators, who could in turn also train volunteer mediators, and who would deal with those types of incivility where mediation is appropriate. I have noted that mediation is not an appropriate response to chronically uncivil and disruptive editors, because reducing the frequency of personal attacks by half legalizes personal attacks. (Dealing with the conflicts that result in personal attacks, such as content disputes compounded by article ownership, is a better use of mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having mediators is not a bad idea, nor is training, although it depends on the quality/philosophy/participation rate. I think separate mediators, not above admin, could be useful and most admin would accept not blocking or taking action as long as a mediator is on the case, as a generally accepted courtesy. (except in the most extreme cases) Most of the good mediation comes from non-admin, to be honest. The "to do" list for admin is such that it is harder to find time to mediate once you get the bit, as ironic as that sounds. People want you doing things that require the bit: deleting, blocking, protecting. I've done a fair amount of mediation over the years, but certainly would benefit from better training. I would gladly accept extra training if it was meaningful, high quality training. Dennis 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, mediators! The one time I did it with a couple people up against a high powered admin used to getting his way, it leveled the playing field and really helped bring together an NPOV article. A couple of us on either side of an issue tried another time but no mediator appeared interested, which was frustrating. I think it would cut down on a lot of problems because communications breakdowns are often the issue that lead to frustration and hostility. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mediators, is an idea worth trying. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Project:Foundation should hire some trained mediators

HiLo48 wrote in thread below: "Angry language rarely happens in isolation." Same with some, not all incivility. That's why we need the foundation to hire 5-10 part-time trained mediators to do it and train volunteers in it. They could put a few thousand a month into that from their to million a year.

Most incivility comes from content disputes and a good mediator can cut through the games to the policy issues. I had an inexperience issue who had to start from scratch in the middle and she still did a great job solving the issues on the article. But couldn't get one the next time I tried. (And the time after the two problem individuals would not join the 4-5 editors who wanted it.) If mediation were more easily available, failure to enter a legitimate/issue based one should be taken into account in future discussions.

If this isn't the place to make this happen, what is? My first idea is a positive petition on Wikimedia.org. It's likely to be given more attention that the negative one vs. the Media viewer (discussion of mediaviewr off topic here.) Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

History of incivility issue on Misplaced Pages??

Reading some old threads I did see one that talked about a period when people were getting blocks for really minor issues. (And I wondered if part of that tendency was the ridiculous 6 month block I got in 2011, later knocked down to 2 weeks after community outcry, my recognizing my error and confessing and apologizing.) I know in 2012 editors got rid of Wikiquette noticeboard. If over enforcement was a problem in the past, it seems to have gone to the other extreme now where people can say and do all sorts of things and a lot of editors are willing to vocally say/shout "just get over it". Now the pendulum seems to swinging back as some say "Get over that? Are you crazy??" Are there details of past events it would be helpful to know for current discussion? Thoughts in general? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Muck raking over old history is of little interest to those who come to contribute content. If you look for trouble you will find it. This project should really be looking to retain editors who provide content not providing a platform for looking for editors somebody perceives to be rude. The past is done, will picking old sores really produce an encyclopedia? J3Mrs (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bad Admins I've encountered are still bad Admins, and are still here. Are you asking us to pretend they're not? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had any evidence of that you would start a discussion somewhere in order to raise an arbcom case to propose removal of someone's admin rights. J3Mrs gave an excellent response to a forum posting—claims of admin abuse does not help. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Heaps of evidence. All seen by other Admins, who did, for example, reverse my blocks, but no consequences for the bad Admins. I have no idea how to raise an arbcom case. Nor should I have to know. I wasn't the offender. I did challenge POV pushers. And the arbcom thing is surely something the other slightly better Admins should have done anyway, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Hilo stands a much better chance to get sanctions for consistent incivility, either per WP:BOOMERANG o when someone finally takes him to RFC/P.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Look! There's one right there! ^ A Putin hating, POV pushing Admin who took me to ANI, and lost. LOL. Shouldn't be allowed to be an Admin. But suffered no consequence for his bad report of me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to this, just to remark that the previous reply, as most of the things Hilo writes are, is factually incorrect. Last time he called me a "Russia hater", lol.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right. I made a mistaken assumption about precisely who or what you were ranting against. You pointed out the truth. I accepted that and acknowledged my mistake. A good thing, surely. But hating Putin still seems to generate a lot of POV pushing here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was referring to opening old wounds and seeking out editors who might use strong language. I didn't mention any sort of admins. Consider me baffled. But I'll tell you something for nothing, 80% of my time here has been spent on articles but since I've been feeling a bit brassed off since the dear leader decreed content doesn't matter, I've been commenting and have to say it's a lot easier than writing.J3Mrs (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not the strong language thing again. There are far worse sins committed here than strong language. Anyway, I find it's an effective way of drawing attention to "civil" POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Calm approach is best. I tend to 'ignore' any editors (administrator or not), if/when they throw f-bombs or other (what I deem as) colourful language at me, on article mainspace talkpages or through their edi-summaries. Misbehaviour from any editor on my talkpage, is usually pointed out by myself & poster's 'unexcepted' words get censured. GoodDay (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

J3Mrs hits the nail on the head: If you look for trouble you will find it. There are tens of thousands of editors who just get on with the job of maintaining and contributing to Misplaced Pages's 4 million articles and we never hear a peep from them or about them. It seems to be always the same 200 or so names that keep cropping up at ANI or over civility issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I get taken to ANI because I confront the POV pushers. It's important that somebody does. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting into disputes, sure got me in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of editors who just get on with the job of maintaining and contributing to Misplaced Pages's 4 million articles and we never hear a peep from them or about them. Yeah, I've heard this argument before (from Floq), but if you think about it for two or more seconds you can see how shallow/invalid it is: How many of the tens of thousands edit maybe four edits per month, compared to well-more prolific editors, including those who also struggle solo in contentious areas (e.g. User:Sitush) or have expertise and oppose Randies instead of folding to watch gray goo take over in fear of admins who typically support the socks and Randies in lieu of established editors!?. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP's sheer raw vindictiveness would put the Mafia to shame. Eric Corbett 11:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should have said in general terms" details, since I wasn't really looking for names and dates. Looking for something like "Some admins went too far and there was a brouhaha at ArbCom" or whatever.

In a similar vein related to such a query, it also seems a few years back anybody who said anything off Misplaced Pages critical of Misplaced Pages or critical of editing habits of certain Wikipedians would get in big trouble and I barely talk about Misplaced Pages at all myself off Wiki for that reason. Yet as I discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment

at a recent ANI] about an editor writing critical things about another editor's editing-only habits off wikipedia, an editor made an impassioned speech for free speech and the closer didn't think off wiki criticism was a big deal. At the time I though it was all sexism, but now wondering if it's some historical evolution to some new free speech movement that I missed and which perhaps has its rough edges that are causing problems.

Re: getting pissed at POV pushers, been there, done that many times. I got fed up with the Putin haters myself and decided it was the better part of valor to just stay out of it til things calmed down and it was clean up time. (Or til the big nuke war makes it irrelevant.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Putin haters are like bad Admins in general. They are obvious. They stand out like sore thumbs. Which is the aspect that bothers me most. If they are so obvious, why are they still allowed to edit? What are the rest of the Admins doing? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, nothing. "Bad" is in the eye of the beholder, and only Arb can desysop. Filing at Arb when your "proof" isn't rock solid is a good way to make enemies and put yourself under the microscope. I did author WP:RAS (with the help of a former Arb), and others have done similar, but the non-admin haven't wanted the authority to desysop anyone outside of an Arb hearing. All efforts to make it so the community can desysop have failed, not because of other admin, but the community itself. Dennis 16:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically in my case, I would resign as soon as I feel that the community does not trust me anymore. However, so far I only had two users who have been increasingly vocal about me, both with a non-empty block log. To me, this doe not yet sound as the community opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I challenged you over your anti-Putin POV pushing, something that is unfortunately common due to our pro-American systemic bias. You took me to ANI, quoting the fact that I had been blocked in the past in that cesspit of injustice, something that tends to happen to those who take on the POV pushers. You lost. You should have copped a boomerang, but as a member of the protected Admin species, you naturally suffered no further consequences. You empty block log simply means that being an Admin you escaped sanction. ANI stinks. But did you not feel that something might have been wrong with your behaviour, or do you intend to just keep popping up wherever I edit now, still trying to get rid of me? HiLo48 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty clear that I am not going to respond to you. You may want to stop wasting your time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your (lack of) response hardly matters. Telling the rest of the readers here about how Admins can freely abuse the system is part of this discussion. Your thoughts are obvious, and help to reinforce my point. I embarrassed you, but that's all. The sad thing is that you suffered no other consequences. Nor do other badly behaved Admins. We cannot have such a powerful, protected species here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the best forum for hashing out differences in a specific situation (one I know nothing of, and have no opinion of). This is an example of where a mediator *might* be helpful. Speaking only in general, admin do get cut extra slack in some circumstances, and actually less in a rare few. Not all that can be blamed on the admin getting the extra slack, however, as we all will grab a rope when handed to us. Human nature and all. ie: the issue isn't individuals really, it is systemic. I'm not saying that applies here (I really have no idea), nor excusing any admin who receives that extra slack, just stating the obvious that this falls under "life isn't fair", and if the community as a whole ignores something, there isn't much recourse. At ANI, most of the participants and drive by commenters are not admin, after all. For every admin ignoring something there, there are at least 10 non-admin doing the same. Dennis 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's the Admins who have the authority to do something about it, not the non-Admins. At ANI, the Admins ignore bad behaviour from all but the accused, with the occasional exception of a boomerang for the accuser. (So long as that accuser is not an Admin. They can simply run free.) Dennis, I was trying to depersonalise this matter in my previous post, but one particular badly behaved Admin seem to be following me around. It's hard to ignore him. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Again, I won't get involved in that (nor marginalize it). But I do think that in general, you are generalizing a bit. I've two years of patrolling ANI, and god knows I'm not perfect, but what I've noticed at ANI is more randomness than anything. If you pick the right cases, you can conclude anything. As for admin looking mainly at the accused, well, there are usually diffs providing evidence against the accused and not diffs showing problems with the accusers. That means we have to go look, and sometimes we miss stuff. The one filing (whether it is because there is an ax to grind or legit reason) will typically spend more time researching than others. Again, not saying it is "fair", just saying that when you are an admin reviewing a case and trying to find a solution, you WILL miss stuff from time to time. We really can't help it. We can't spend 3 hours on a case doing extensive background searching, and some editors are so prolific, that is what it would take, as they have many, many edits per day, and most are pretty good edits. Not an excuse, just the reality of the situation. Even the most experienced admin is still an amateur/volunteer. We aren't professional investigators. Some of us have investigator experience and training, but not here. We err. Dennis 22:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Admins are amateurs/volunteers, but they sought the job. One must always wonder why. There was no conscription. Some wave the Admin flag a lot, telling the world how important that makes them. Some use it to threaten others who disagree with them on article Talk pages. (I reckon that as soon as that happens they should be immediately blocked for a very long time.) Some responsibility to look beyond the surface must come with the fame and glory some obviously see in holding that rank. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Death toll

Well Jimbo has planted himself firmly at the hard core end of politically-correct civility enforcement and harassment on Misplaced Pages. The death knell has started ringing for serious content builders and perhaps this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. Misplaced Pages is constantly changing site. The only thing that could kill it is lack of donations. PS: Not all serious content builders are the same :) GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By this project I meant WikiProject Editor Retention, not Misplaced Pages itself. That will survive, just fail to reach it's potential. It will be a lovely playground for social networkers. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Jimmy's opinion is going to change this project, he is one person, one voice, and one voice who is slowly walking away from Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean his opinion isn't valid, I'm just saying I doubt Jimmy is going to go off and play dictator on this issue. That said, I think Dr. Blofeld and Black Kite make good arguments there, as do others, and as I often do, I disagree with Jimmy's perspective. It isn't that we want incivility, but we think there needs to be an even playing field, which includes everyone tolerating a little incivility every now and then. Our goal needs to first be equity, not a harsh line in the sand, or a shot across the bow by banning Eric, the poster child for civility. At the end of the day, this isn't an experiment in creating a society, we are here solely to build an encyclopedia that is free (as in speech and beer) for the world to use. Everything takes a back seat towards that goal, and should. You start choking down on editors for minor incivility, you will lose a great deal of editors, perhaps myself. Dennis 23:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the gender page, which I wasn't watching, and I'm currently not watching ANI. What a mess. Dennis 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the first things I came to realize when I started here was that Wales' opinion on most subjects is worthless, and this is no exception. What often gets missed in those discussions is the use of policy by some people to silence those who disagree with them and manipulate the system into something they desire. Misplaced Pages's overly dense web of policies, essays mistaken for or applied as policy, and the ability of some to use that web to provoke and then silence others is the greatest obstacle to the encyclopedia reaching its potential. More policies aren't what we need... Intothatdarkness 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Jimmy, and he may turn out more PC than me on civility, he certainly seems to think it is more important than I do. There are some who think that if we deal with the project's incivility then we solve our editor retention problems and won't need this project; I think that grossly overstates things and that there are more important problems to fix. Others are under the misapprehension that one can't be both civil and a serious contributor. My assumption is that if we could be genuinely, fairly and consistently a more civil place then in the medium to longterm it would be a net positive for editor retention, and I hope that the few who would need to would learn to curb their tongues rather than go. True to my personality type, I'm not really sure how to get there other than striving to keep my own postings civil and gently having a quiet word with people when appropriate; but a good place to start would be to try and define and agree the minimum standard of civility we want. ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't be done. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically which of the three do you think can't be done? Me being civil, having a quiet word with people one perceives as incivil or defining and agreeing a standard for civility? ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing on a standard for civility. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried, I've seen others try, but the global nature of the place makes it very hard, WP:BIAS and all. I would love to see a simple set of rules on civility that was reasonable, flexible and could be applied to admin as well as non, too, but I'm simply not smart enough to come up with it. For me, WP:NPA is the gold standard, as it is easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand, and it applies universally. Raising the bar from there has proven quite difficult, but not from a lack of trying. Until then, I'm forced to (try to) treat non-admin the same as we treat admin when it comes to civility, so if admin are tolerating something from fellow admin, then we must tolerate it from non-admin, or we are being hypocrites. Dennis 10:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  I do not think NPA is lways easy to apply, as people seem to have different opinions what a personal attack is. (Again, English is not my mothertongus, so that I may be closer to the sideline here, but I certainly seen many situations when A and B clash, B gets offended, and A thinks there was nothing offensive said at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  if admin are tolerating something from fellow admin, then we must tolerate it from non-admin That seems to be in contradiction to expectation of admin behavior to be at "a higher standard" and implies it is at lower standard (then adjust the standard lower according to how low admins go). Also, assessment how admin treat other admin as a basis what level of civility reg users must abide, is skipping the observation how admins treat reg users (why skip the biggest area of complaint from reg users?). Also, WP:NPA is easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand Instead of soft abstractions, how about specific examples (e.g., PA or no?: "I notice your postings are nasty toward others, I think what you do is damaging to Misplaced Pages, and that you should just leave the site."). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean that as a base standard, ie: if admin can do it, then at a minimum, non-admin can do it. "Higher standard" is on the other side of that, and best left for a separate discussion. For admin, I think the higher standard mainly refers to the frequency of transgression more than the type, but again, another discussion. And your quote, I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch. It is a blunt observation and opinion, and if pursued beyond the single statement (or made at an admin board) should be backed by diffs as it is an extraordinary claim. That is not all the same as saying "You're an idiot.", which is rude and somewhat mild by NPA standards, but an obvious line in the sand. Dennis 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch. Well, I agree with you Dennis (i.e. clearly no PA); but, that quote was just a copyedit and essentially no different from this comment by a user, which was labelled "personal attack" by admin The Bushranger here. Also in the same thread admin Drmies seems to be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong please ) that the user's comment was one of several valid enough reasons for an indef-block. (So it seems Dennis, your view re "easy interpretation" and "universality" of comprehension of WP:NPA isn't shared at all by your other fellow active admins. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with another admin, we admin disagree with each other more than you realize. We even get rude with each other and argue policy; we just do it in email, out of professional courtesy. I tend to agree with those two more than disagree with them, but we have all publicly (politely) disagreed with each other. Drmies is saying that the rude comment is part of a pattern and this diff is probably the straw that broke the camel's back, a legal threat. While not the most serious sounding, it is specifically what WP:DOLT is about, we can't allow that to stay on a page. But as for , no, I wouldn't call that a personal attack. Honestly, it wasn't really rude, it was just a blunt opinion. Again, I don't have the context and only looking looking at single diffs, so this isn't a statement against anyone. You know me well enough to know that I wouldn't have even reverted it off my talk page, and probably would have just manually archived it after a few days. It really isn't strong enough to even use as part of a pattern, unless that pattern was harassment of that person. Dennis 2¢ 12:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is saying that the rude comment is part of a pattern No, that is not what he said, this is what he said: Of the half a dozen or so valid reasons to indef-block this person, Acroterion chose "legal threat". The point is your assertion WP:NPA is the gold standard, as it is easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand, and it applies universally implying that NPA compared to other CIV policies is somehow easier to apply or more able to be applied less inconsistently or less contentiously than others, doesn't pan out in practice. (But do you really think those admins interpret NPA such that the user's comment met the criteria?! Because what I think is quite different -- that admins will use/misuse/twist/abuse policy any way they please to achieve he results/sanctions they want to impose.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think what Drmies said might be open to interpretation, it really depends on how you read it. I took it as him lumping them together. I haven't read it all, forgive me for being very general. An not every admin reads NPA the same way, I already know that. Most would consider me quite liberal when it comes to enforcing civility, or just blocking in general (outside of sockpuppetry). Can admin twist things around and block prematurely? Of course, and obviously some do. Those that do regularly eventually get the boot. I can't really change that, and trust me, I've tried. Not every knee jerk reaction block is "abuse", however, sometimes it is just bad judgement or misreading the tea leaves. I really wish you had the admin bit for a few months. It wouldn't change your mind about abuse and such, but it would help you understand how easy it is to simply make a mistake, and why sometimes we just don't want to get involved with a particular issue. Being an admin isn't nearly as much fun as you might think, enough so that more admin are giving up their bits twice as often as people are lining up at RFA. I've seriously debated it myself, and had it typed out at WP:BN once, but didn't submit. Not to quit Misplaced Pages, but just so I wouldn't have to deal with the hassles. Even now, I love to read Misplaced Pages, but typically do it logged out so I don't have to see notifications. Being an admin has sucked much of the joy out of being here. This doesn't excuse bad behavior, nor does it contradict the idea that abuses happen, but walking a mile in an admins shoes might help to understand how something might look like abuse when it is something different. It's a bit more complicated than I can explain within the context of this discussion. Dennis 2¢ 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch. And I agree with you. And I don't think any reasonable person would match that user's comments up to WP:NPA. Your logic is bad for two reasons Dennis, first, you're assuming all admins are like you and would not relish their power-positions on WP and enjoy abusing them. (There are people who let their extra powers here go to their head, and have relished being abusive with said powers. And you say that if they regularly do that they are routinely de-sysopped, when everyone knows just how difficult and rare that is to bring about. And the topic is appropriate for this project, since there are many editors driven away by admins over-reaching for the block button -- that is beyond any doubt and could be diff'd galore.) The existence of admins who relish their positions to abuse others for their own satisfactions on the WP is appropriately labelled corruption. You seem to be excusing all admins, characterising abuses with "oh gee they are tired/burnt-out, you would understand if you were in their shoes, and we should all try and understand them better". (That's why I say hogwash. You could excuse any admin for any abuse with that logic.) Second, to say or assert that you and The Bushranger just have a "different interpretation" of WP:NPA, where that user's comment is a far stretch from a PA according to you, and a PA according to The Bushranger, is ... too much to swallow. (Are you really saying people would maintain a straight face, to see The Bushranger try to logically and reasonably explain and defend how he labelled that comment a PA??) Again, hogwash. (And defending him with "oh, he's tired, you must forgive him" is BS, Dennis. It is a voluntary position. No one demands that they be here, or be active here. They can take a Wikibreak. They can choose to exercise/flex their admin muscles more conservatively. You've many times acted as apologist for admins who've been abusive so as to be a pattern from you, Dennis, and that's not good, especially for the founder of this particular project.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing for anyone. I haven't researched it enough to take a hard stance, however. I did say I disagreed with categorizing that as a personal attack. Not sure what else I can do unless I jump in and get involved, something I'm not really expecting. There is a big difference between not being sure about someone's action and suggesting caution before blocking them, and being an apologist. I haven't agreed with anything anyone has done, I've just said I don't have all the info. It would be pretty irresponsible to jump to conclusion, whether they were admin or not. In that respect, I would say I'm treating them the same as anyone else. I have called out other admin, mainly in private, but also in public. In public, I'm the one that gets called names, with the real apologists saying I should have my bit stripped. I'm more than familiar with the drill around here, perhaps more than you realize. Dennis 2¢ 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You've managed to overcomplicate a simple thing. The Bushranger's claim the user's comment was a PA, was BS, and you don't need a thorough research to draw that conclusion. (Ditto Drmies's followup, suggesting the comment was alone deserving of an indef-block. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I already agreed with you that the Bushranger comment wasn't a personal attack, a couple of times. The other, I would have to look at the other issues before jumping to conclusions but didn't say you were wrong, just that I didn't have enough info on Drmies' comment. That isn't remotely complicated. You're arguing with me after I agreed with you on one point and refused to argue with you on the other because I simply don't have enough info. Dennis 2¢ 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that a tightening of WP:CIVIL is coming our way. There's a wave building up & things are gonna be rough for awhile, as we'll have to make adjustments to our conduct. Indeed, some editors will (regretfully) retire, but there'll be newbies to replace them. Thus the nature of the project, it's always changing. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Eric Corbett 22:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're right. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I usually am. Eric Corbett 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" but you should always bet that way. Dennis 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I betted that the community would demand my site-ban be lifted, back in Oct 2013 or atleast the restoration of my talkpage privillages. Neither happened, oh well :( GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay: You keep alluding to a ban but have not said if it was for incivility and if the incivility was anything as bad as that which has been discussed all over WP:ANI the last few months. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bad"? Unfortunately, that's a subjective word too. Some editors see swearing (at least their definition of it) as being far worse than anything else. I don't. And I suspect others are like me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Subjectivity is the Achilles Heel for admin, and again, why it is only responsible to use the tools in areas where there is little ambiguity. To bolster your point, HiLo48, if you told me "your writing on some article is shit.", one person would call that a personal attack, another would call it gratuitous use of swear words, I would probably snicker and say "give me an example", and then if needed, argue with you over grammar/commas/US usage vs. AU usage/etc. Or I might say "Yeah, prose isn't my thing, I'm more of a researcher and meant to polish that but forgot." I would take it as a blunt assessment, with the wording chosen to get my attention. If you did that all the time, yeah, it would get old, but not singularly. That is an instance where two people would be calling for you to get blocked for different reasons, but the "target" person just seeing it as being blunt. Probably not a good idea to say to editors, but sometimes it is reasonable to be that blunt. Sometimes. Dennis 2¢ 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What if someone said "you vomit bullshit excuses for maximum incivility?" I've had the like thrown at me. Does that sort of thing meet your threshold? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best example, particularly being an admin. I will just say that I have had people say worse to me and I just ignore it. Part of that is just being how I am, confident enough (or arrogant, I will let you decide) that I'm not particularly moved by other's opinions of me unless they are someone who is directly involved in my life. The other part is being an admin, you get thick skin. I might get a bit pissed when I see Editor A call Editor B a name, but seldom do I get bent out of shape by someone calling me a name. Hounding me, yes, that gets old, but that isn't a singular thing, a concept I've talked about at length. I've been called an idiot, told to fuck off, etc. lots of times. Delete someone's pet article, and some will flip out a bit. I don't take it personal, they don't know me enough to even make it personal. To be honest, your phrase confused me more than anything. You aren't very good at being incivil ;) The point being is that the same phrase will affect different people differently, which is why I try really hard to simply ignore single comments, so if someone said "Carol, you suck", I wouldn't say much except maybe to ask them to tone it down. If they come after and start reverting all your edits with the summary "lies" or similar, then I would block them for WP:DE - disruptive editing, instantly. That isn't a singular issue, that is a pattern of harassing, which I personally won't tolerate as that makes it miserable for the editor who is on the receiving end. That doesn't mean that the singular comments was nice, or fair, or civil. It just means I can't know how you took it, if it was a joke and I just don't get it, or what their motivations are. When they follow and revert, their motivations are much easier to demonstrate. We can't and won't take action on every infraction, just those that are clearly and obviously affecting others. Dennis 2¢ 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the context too. Angry language rarely happens in isolation. Such a comment would obviously be a response to something that had gone before, and it's possible that it followed something far worse (probably not from you, Carol), or perhaps less dramatically nasty, but persistent over months or years. It's latter that's the far bigger problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I found in my experience that mediation helps defeat the POV pushers/uncivil insulters etc. because it cuts through their games. (See section above.) The worst thing about games and insults is that after a while they seem like "normal behavior" and others adopt them unthinkingly. The bad editors drive out the good, minus smart third party intervention. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

POV pushers are time bombs anyway, it is always just a matter of time. My observation is that most admin (and the public at ANI) are quick to indef a POV warrior for the same infractions, because the POV is a compounding factor demonstrating it isn't likely to get better, and the act of POV is itself disruptive. They is demonstrating they are a POV warrior, not just someone that has a different opinion. That usually means seeing the same edits over many pages/articles. And they tend to be quick to anger, because they aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in The Truth®. It's also one reason I try to avoid articles with religious overtones. As for other seeing it and thinking that is ok, this is one reason it helps to comment about their actions with some gentle but firm authority, but not to actually use the admin tools. It's not a great solution, just the best I have. Dennis 2¢ 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at all the BLPNs, NPOVNs, ANIs, etc a few of us did throughout 2013 to deal with two POV pushers (who also were wikihounders) and see how Admins refused to deal with it and it was pushed up to a higher authority where finally the 5+ and several neutral parties made it clear POV pushing had to stop. It was stopped, though the Wikihounding continued til the admins finally dealt with it. It's the kind of thing that makes super-admins look good, and there was nary a gun barrel in sight. ("Gun barrel" being the new code phrase for admins who let "connected" editors get a way with just about anything.)

Hey, here's a slogan for this project: "For a new Misplaced Pages, SANE and SAFE." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd still say, having a thick skin is the best approach. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. We should always be looking for sanity anyway. And I'm not sure what the word SAFE means in that context. Maybe it's a cultural thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Safe can mean things like Wikimedia Foundation stopping death threats from coming though their email system before they reach 500, instead after they reach 1000. It could meant editors not standing up for "gun barrell" threats and thinking 24 hour block is enough. It could mean not having to beg ANI, arbitrators and admins for a year to get a harasser off your back until you almost stop editing. Little things like that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking a break

Been pretty preoccupied with other issues and projects and haven't spent enough time here so I am letting the project know that I am taking a break from participating here. That will probably make things better so it should actually be seen as a good thing. The project is doing a good job just existing. The fact that we don't really do anything hasn't really effected how well it is perceived. The one bright spot of activity is done by a small handful of editors to highlight the work of OTHERS. Can you believe that? They actually want to spotlight the work of other people. I strongly encourage editors to help more with Editor of the Week. Really. We discuss a lot and do little...but they keep trudging along with almost no help. Give them a hand if you can. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Enjoy the break. I'm mainly breaking myself. I would argue that more comes from the pages than just EoW (a great program), but it isn't obvious from the pages. I think the project puts "retention" in the minds of a lot of people in everything they do, plus several small projects that benefit from it. It isn't the cure-all, but it helps. And simply having a centralized place to discuss, bitch, brainstorm, etc. helps, and may influence people when they vote in polls on other pages. The benefits are nuanced, but don't count it completely out. Some months are better than others, but it isn't useless by any means. Once I have the time, I have some other WER projects I want to get rolling, but I simply don't have the time this month, maybe not this year. We will never "fix" anything here, we can only plant seeds. On that front, I think we've done some good. Dennis 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A little butterfly can start a hurricane. (Not to mention a big squawking crow.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• What kind of things would you like to do to help retain editors? As someone who is involved in the Teahouse, is there some common pattern to the questions that could somehow be addressed? As you've noted in the past, resolving disputes is often a key problem; is there some way we could recruit more experience in mediation to Misplaced Pages? Perhaps hiring people to be uninvolved, third-party mediators might be the best way. Although I realize the community is loathe to cede editorial control, I think the idea of binding mediation should be explored.
• I suggested above that I think we should be trying to recruit good editors to Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure on how to give this the publicity it needs. Maybe we can get some people from the Teahouse to design a good set of welcome pages and banner ads to support this initiative? Kudpung suggested advertising to attract more editors. Should we try to lobby the WMF for advertising? Should we lobby for the long-promised landing page to help assist newcomers?
• Following up on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Telling people their edits are promotional, maybe the various groups with extensive experience talking with new editors (e.g. those involved in the Teahouse, Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol, and so forth) can pool their knowledge and come up with scripts for best ways to introduce editors to basic Misplaced Pages principles and guidelines. (The scripts would branch out based on the editor's responses.) This project could act as a central point of discussion for this initiative, or any of the other projects could be used, if the editors prefer.
• Given the reality that everyone's time is limited, initiatives that can progress forward with lots of incremental tasks are the most achievable. The groundwork can still be prepared, though, for larger-scale proposals, by constructing solid rationales examining both pros and cons. The key is to focus on what we can do, and not fret over what someone else has to do. What are everyone's ideas on what's in our power to change to improve matters? isaacl (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe some one should do something about this small but annoying issue: this obnoxious edit summary. How can intelligent productive editors be retained when they have to worry if this sort of barbarity will be dropped on them for correcting something like massive technical disruption of a page? It's insanity. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

for correcting something like massive technical disruption of a page Yes, it certainly would be insanity if that were the reason. But it wasn't. (Too bad? Carol aren't you the editor who's complained repeatedly about other editors "casting aspersions"!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for being insufficiently clear; I was asking about what ideas everyone had for specific actions that could be undertaken? I appreciate the issue you've raised, but the actions to try to address this come back to the same discussion you started above and on other talk pages, and the potential resolutions are not small. In the interest of avoiding diffusing discussion, perhaps the civility issue can be kept to the other thread? isaacl (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Carol, I'm pretty sure Doc has been told to fuck off more than once, and can let it slide off his back like water on a duck. They have some history, including Doc's previous summary "You fucked up the TOC with the continued whinging. Annoying". Seriously, two editors that swat at each other once in a blue moon, this is the kind of stuff that admin should ignore as long as it is just singular comments. We aren't school marms or the nannies. Dennis 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask Carol if the f-word she objected to was the first and or only piece of incivility she saw in that thread? And was it really the worst? I see far worse incivility here every day than the use of one word from a list of words some don't like. One editor is unlikely to have told another to fuck off if all had been sweetness and love up to that point. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

First, most editors don't know the history of other editors and may consider it to be a "fuck off" out of the blue. Hey, I have a lot of editors I'd like to tell to "fuck off" in big bold letters half the size of their talk page (and a lot of other things that would shrivel their weenies for weeks). But of course there is this problem with some editors being allowed to get away with incivility and others warned or even sanctioned for nothing but a lot of allegations with nary a diff in site. There's too much cronyism on Misplaced Pages to allow incivility because some are allowed to be uncivil and abuse it to get their way on articles and others aren't permitted that luxury. I've certainly come to see it's not just a male/female thing, but it's also a interpersonal relationship thing. The good back scratchers get away with more than the less expert backscratchers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is cronyism here, although it isn't always obvious from the talk pages. Lots of stuff happens offwiki and on private channels of IRC, something we can't change. I don't think you can ever escape all of it, human nature being what it is, but there is more than I like and certainly more than what serves us best. This is another reason I tend to be rather lax in enforcing the minor incivility and why I full protect pages instead of blocking two editors who are at 4RR, etc. There are only two possible ways to go to level the playing field: get tougher with established users (we can't even define "civil", and that doesn't stop cronyism, it just creates enemies, so this isn't a great option) or try to level it by being equally lax with everyone, but follow up with discussion. I don't have the "answer" here, I just try to take this approach, which I'm still learning. I constantly say it, but there is never going to be justice here, only solutions. Dennis 15:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Mark for your kind and encouraging words re: Editor of the Week. You were there at the start and its current success is because of our (5 or 6 editors) diligence back then. Good luck with your break. I see you around, here and there, dispensing Good Advice....editor retention in practice. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• What? You can't walk away from WP:RETENTION. Oh the irony of your actions ;) Good luck & hope you return, sooner then later :) GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of good things that started here and I am sure it will continue. But I'm not in a positive, helping mood lately. I had hoped I would brush it off and get over it sooner, but I think I need the break to find my Misplaced Pages feet again, understand my place and know the right Direction to move forward. Thanks everyone and thank you Dennis. As I have said before, it was you and this project that were the turning point for me on Misplaced Pages. Pretty sure I would have been ideffed by now had I not found Editor Retention.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I unwatched this page myself. (Just checked back if any reply on mediation.) Actual editor retention doesn't seem to be the prime concern here any more. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there, always

My hope is that editors who get discouraged with Misplaced Pages & have retired or are contemplating retirement, will view me as an example of dedication & perseverance. I hope they'll be inspired by this Wiki-gnome & hang in there :) GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

They can visit User:Wavelength/About Misplaced Pages/Collaboration.—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Misplaced Pages struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Been thinking of quitting

There is currently a thread at AN/I where all the mud in the world is being thrown at me. This is because I have argued very firmly that the the use of the word "poached" is not neutral. The editor who used the word got sick of my insistence that using the word was wrong, and took me to AN/I, where the usual pile-on of dirt from everyone whose POV pushing I have got in the way of is underway.

To me, it's a simple blue sky, content and POV issue. This editor is blatantly pushing a POV against a sporting code that is challenging his favourite one for audience share and, in this case, players. Well, that's my view obviously. I could be wrong. But I haven't been persuaded yet. I'm not really interested in opinions on the particular issue. What does concern me is that Misplaced Pages's processes allow a trivial issue like this to go so deep into our appalling justice system, where mud gets thrown with impunity. I don't want personal sympathy. I just wish we had a better way of dealing with matters like this. I was becoming a bit depressed.

So I thought, just walk away. I haven't yet. Of course the pretence for justice at AN/I could stop me in my tracks anyway. If I disappear for a while, you will all know why. It will be one for one of those two reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Be tough & stick around. I'm still here, with no intentions of retiring. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:Wavelength/About Misplaced Pages/Collaboration.—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of us face much worse than that on a daily basis, and if you expect justice anywhere on WP then I'm afraid you're destined to be disappointed. Eric Corbett 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that thread does not appear to be going anywhere but civility is something we all need to understand is an editor retention issue. "Justice" may be the wrong idea here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention getting discouraged is something I am going through as well...but there is light at the end of the tunnel.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Which tunnel might that be? Eric Corbett 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For me it is the light and not the tunnel that is important. But for me, its the way I see admin reacting to the community lately and the way my last technical issue was quickly and quietly handled. No...not the Arb Com thing involving the Gender Gap issue. I'm glad it is being looked into but that is not light, just an important enough issue to look into, not something I think determines how I feel about Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia in general. I don't have your page watch listed but I did just look and being one of 18 superb collaborators says a lot about you Eric...for whatever that may mean to you, but it means something to me and a lot of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48, I would like to think I have some experience with "quitting". I quit for two years back around late 08 to late 10, before coming back and deciding I needed to become an admin, which I did 18 months later. I think about quitting on at least a couple times a year. I don't use the phrase flippantly either, I'm very sincere, and have typed out my "take my admin bit" and previewed, but didn't save, one time. It is a frustrating place. I'm frustrated as hell right now with a great many things, and while I'm swamped in the real world, my frustration is why I spend what little free time I have elsewhere and not here right now. I find I need to take extended wikibreaks at least once or twice a year, to keep from screaming and running out of the room with my hands waving over my head. It is harder to do if you are involved in the processes, like GA, FA or for someone who is an admin like me, because there is always some politics playing out that require you peek in some and sometimes comment. This is one reason I've unwatchat ed all the admin boards and just staying away from as much "process" as possible. Some days, I actually get some editing in, and I like that. My point being that maybe you need to pull back 80%, and switch only to non-controversial article titles for a while. I know its sometimes tough, but for your own sanity (and pleasure), it might be helpful. I've seen you take a beating before, and I've been critical when I felt it was appropriate (and hopefully it wasn't perceived as a beating). You have a blunt way, which I personally don't have a problem working with, but some just don't understand how cutting through the bullshit and being honest isn't the same as being "rude", and most of the time, you aren't rude, just blunt. You can't flip a switch and become something you aren't (nor should you want to), but you can flip a switch and go edit something that is being neglected, and just spend less time here overall, at least for a month or two. You might try that first, if you haven't yet. Put yourself out of the line of fire for a bit, let the wounds heal up. Dennis 2¢ 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way I would ever be allowed to become an Admin. I have upset too many of them; the bigots and POV pushers among the Admin clique. I have also continued to push the line the Admins should always be as willing to block other Admins who behave badly as they are to block other editors. Too many bad Admins have seen me push this line, and have done some public hate talking about me because of it. So, no chance I could ever become an Admin. As for sticking to non-controversial articles, you would hope that sports articles might fit that bill, but it was because of a POV pusher on one of them that I was most recently taken to AN/I. Might look at some gardening topics. Are they safe? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power that cilantro has on people ;) As to sports, I've always found them to be hotbeds of edit warring and arguments. Pre-bit, I did a lot of mediating at MMA discussions, back when it was the worst sewer pit on the wiki, so I actually have some experience with them. At first glance, you would think they would be cut and dry editing, but arguments over GNG, templates, infoboxes, what is trivial and what isn't....sports pages are full of passionate people, and a few worshipping fanboys. Video game articles can be problematic as well. As you know, even when you are right, and when the other guy is an idiot, if you both pull a 4RR, some admin will just instinctively block because of that magic line in the sand. Dennis 2¢ 15:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though I personally resolve to avoid anything more than 1RR, I'm sure somebody can drag a skeleton out of my closet and say "Look - he edit warred with me! Strong oppose!" Ritchie333 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO HiLo, it depends on one's reputation & who's watchlist one is on. The Pile-on effect can occur anywheres on this project. But again, don't be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilo asked so many users to fuck off that he is unsurprisingly on too many watchlists.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone! There's a perfect example of a stalking, POV pushing Admin who has me on his Watchlist, because I embarrassed him and he would LOVE to get rid of me. Yes, you can fuck off! HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are lying again. And I had this page on my watchlist long before I learned of your existence. Though, indeed, I would like to see you indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Although when a fellow apparatchik re-grants admin rights to a Commons admin thrown off for stalking another, and when they wheel-war twice with WMF to do so, then you give them your full support within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point being?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm assumingly on quite a few watchlists, myself. But, that's not going to discourage me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you do not tell to fuck off to everybody you have minor disagreements with.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry ymblanter, but you taking me to AN/I (and losing) because I was getting in the way of your POV pushing, allowing all the usual bullshit that happens in that disaster of a justice system, is NOT a minor disagreement. POV pushers coming to MY Talk page to tell me they don't like me, is NOT a minor disagreement. It's a pain in the ass. And let's make this clear, you tried to get me blocked, and were told you were wrong. As I have pointed out many times, Admins are a protected species here, so you suffered no consequences. But I now I get "Look, HiLo is always being taken to AN/I, so he must be bad", while all the while YOU were the problem. You are a big problem for this project. Now stop stalking me, accept that you were wrong, and fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think I am POV pushing, which I obvioulsy deny, take me to ANI, prove it, and get me topic-banned, no problem. Until you have accomplished it, pls stop repeating this bullshit. I have ben elected admin last year with more than 100 votes. Try to get elected - and we see how much all your hate talk costs.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the kind of bullying post that only an Admin can make with no fear of negative consequences. You KNOW nothing will happen. I hope others are watching your behaviour here and seeing the obvious problems badly behaved, bullying, POV pushing Admins cause. Thank you for highlighting the problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe that you'd be elected again if you stood at RfA today Ymblanter? I think rather few admins would, which is why there's such a resistance to term limits. Eric Corbett 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I would be elected again, but I would not have an difficulties voluntarily resigning if a sizable number of users become seriously upset by my activity as admin. So far, onlr two users have been vocal about it, and both have large amount of sceletons in their cupboards, so that I am not yet prepared to take it as a sign of community discontent.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please describe the skeletons in my cupboard. Note that mentioning being taken to AN/I by you, or any others, where there was no conviction, cannot rationally count. Even some of my convictions have been overturned, and ALL were cases of me responding to POV pushers. Any case where any of the evidence was "Look how many times he's been brought to AN/I" can also obviously not count. So go ahead. Describe my skeletons. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You consistently assume bad faith of the others, and you are consistently incivil by the standards of the vast majority of the editors. This is attested also by your block log. I can even tell you more, if you stop assuming bad faith, and if you start behaving, I would have no issues with you. If you do not believe me and think I am biased, start an RFA and see what others say.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a rational discussion with you. I told you that nothing at AN/I could really count, especially when it comes from you. And how can I assume good faith with a Putin hating POV pusher who took me to AN/I because I was getting in the way of his bigotry, and lost? There has to be a limit to assuming good faith with such editors as you. You obviously failed to assume good faith with me. I know you are biased, but because you are an Admin, you are immune from sanction, and an RFA would be pointless. And I know you can't even see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked me a question if you are not prepared to listen to an answer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was to see if you really did have an answer, and you didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I thought you are genuinely interested to know what you problems are and how your behavior is seen by the others, and why you are taken to ANI so often (not even by me). Apparently, you are not interested. It is ok with me. I am not here for the mud throw competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know why I get taken to AN/I. There are two overlapping reasons. Firstly, I get in the way of POV pushers such as you, and they'll do anything to try to silence me. Secondly, I at times use language some here don't like. This language comes fairly naturally to me, but I do at times emphasise it to get the attention of others to the bad behaviour of some editors, again, such as you. It's a long time since I've had a real block. Early on I tried to fight the piling on of abuse and bullshit from uninvolved editors, such as you at my most recent visit there. I learnt that the best approach is to make a clear and simple statement about the bad behaviour I was getting in the way of, then just move on. The bigots usually spout so much crap their complaints go nowhere. One block I had earlier was when some NRA supporting Admins fought over how long I should be blocked for for stating a truth they didn't like. I don't go near NRA discussions any more. Rational thought is dangerous there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm one of the two users who have previously expressed concern regarding Ymblanter, let's make that three. WER is not an appropriate forum to resume a previous interpersonal conflict, and shows lack of maturity and judgement. NE Ent 10:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not. Ok, good, couple of more, and I resign as administrator, no problems. I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't throw f-bombs at anyone. But, I don't mind editors who do throw them. We each have our own style. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to have our own style? I thought we were all supposed to be Jimbo clones, although if we were, very little would ever get written. Eric Corbett 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle :) GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Editor Retention isn't a good place to get in a bare knuckle fight, folks. Dennis 2¢ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as nobody retires, WP:RETENTION's goal is being met ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought for a while we are discussing really important things here, but apparently we are not. This is a pity, but there is not much I can do beyond stopping responding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We do discuss important things, like retention, in the broadest of senses. If a discussion gets personal or turns into a personal debate, however, we ask people to take it their own talk pages or other appropriate venue. WER isn't a mediation board and we don't pick sides. We have no authority to function in an administrative roll for Misplaced Pages, nor do we want it. Dennis 2¢ 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I do not generally agree. If we are discussing editor retention for arbitrary editors, we are discussing a spherical cow. For example, if we have (just a hypothetical example, no relation to this thread) a vandal who was blocked for vandalism and he now complains how badly he is treated by administrators, we should not start discussing relation between administrators and non-administrators, with usual parties around. We should tell him to stop vandalizing. And then we can discuss why is is bad to vandalize Misplaced Pages, and what is the best strategy to stop vandalizing. In this thread, I tried to bring the discussion at a similar level, but, unfortunately, I was extremely unsuccessful, to the point I was told three times to fuck off and told by two users that they do not trust me as administrator. On the second thought, I should not have done it at all, but in my opinion, starting in this thread a discussion about POV-pushing administrators is extremely pointless. It serves no purpose except for implying that I am a POV-pusher. To avoid this in the future, I am going to unwatch WER, simnilarly to how I am slowly unwatching other pages in WP; and WT: namespaces.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first post in this thread does not seem to be trying to discuss the reasons for a specific undesirable behaviour, and the best strategy to try to address these reasons. I believe it would indeed be more productive to isolate why certain actions are bad, why they occur, perhaps in context of actual examples, and discuss how to address these issues, and you (or anyone) are welcome to initiate a conversation in this direction. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I perfectly characterized typical behavior of the topicstarter, but I also feel that discussing the issue will only lead to further throwing mud and not to anything reasonable. Unfortunately. You are welcome to discuss (in a separate thread) whether it is good for editor retention to tell people to fuck off, but I will not join this discussion anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our understanding sounds kind of similar—for better or worse, further discussion of a personal issue is problematic, but going to the next step would be good: as you stated, why is it bad to do X, where X in your example was "vandalize Misplaced Pages", and what is the best strategy to stop X. I understand if you would prefer to leave the discussion to others; nonetheless, thoughtful contributions from everyone will always be welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, he didn't mention names, and our goal wasn't to agree or disagree with any specific instance, it was to simply say that we all feel that way sometimes. Again, we aren't here to take sides or resolve ANI style problems. Most of the time, we don't even deal with individuals, but if they come here, we are human, and will offer an ear. We offer advice, such as moving away from controversial topics and instead work on simpler stuff that also needs work. You personalized it with your participation, and in particular, the way you expressed yourself. I don't know the Truth® in this particular situation, but it doesn't really matter as (again) we aren't an admin board nor do we dispense justice here.

Is it good for retention for editors to tell each other "fuck off"? That is better as an abstract discussion rather than in the middle of a dispute between the two of you. Or at least not until the dust settles, where it can be discussed in a less emotional way. It wouldn't be the first time that particular discussion has taken place here. Dennis 2¢ 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's might be a long time before the dust settles when ymblanter keeps showing his obsession with getting rid of me by popping up in threads that have nothing to do with him and brings up completely irrelevant bullshit. When people do that, with no fear of negative consequence because of their protected status as an Administrator, the temptation to tell them to fuck off is very strong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened this from Lightbreather's close because the last thing anybody wants to see when they're disillusions with Misplaced Pages is their concerns being full heartedly dismissed. In this case, 'hatting' may have that effect. I myself have been disillusioned by WP:ANI and recently too, and the fact that an editor may want to quit and we may be able to help them is appropriate for an open discussion, who's last reply is not that long ago. Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's actually quite important to me. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from HiLo48's contributions, but I'd also like less of the drama his overly blunt to some ears language chronically generates. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from the thankless scutwork of admins -- it's called a mop for a reason -- but I'd also like them to act in a way as like to deescalate a situation as inflame it further. NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (in response to ) NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do they still issue admins with mops? I thought it was just egos and halos these days.

How many admins do you see doing "mopwork"? How much mopwork actually needs an admin bit anyway? How much instead do we see, "If you disagree with me again, I'll block you, peasant"? There are still a handful of good admins around, many of whom pop up constructively here, but overall it's worse than it ever was: clique-ridden and biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see Lightbreather's hat. Thanks for removing it Tutelary. Lightbreather's comment with the hat was "Personal conflict not important to project or related to Misplaced Pages editor retention in general." Seeing this as a personal conflict is part of the problem here. It might seem only personal, but it's real, and it's a case of an imbalance of power. I will keep on trying to stop anyone's POV pushing whenever I see it and whoever does it. I did not single out ymblanter, and I am not stalking him. I don't watch his edits. I have no idea where he is editing, apart from when he turns up to disagree with and pour shit on me. It's him, an Administrator, who has made this personal by stalking me, and watching MY edits. And perhaps, again, I shouldn't be targeting ymblanter directly here, but the system that gives him free reign to keep doing what he is doing. I am convinced that there is no effective discipline process for Administrators here. A totally protected, but unthreatened and powerful species is not good for Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Ent, and on previous occasions opined just that with HiLo48 at ANI. Same with admin. It's why I take breaks, why I listen when others tell me I need a break (you being one of them). People don't realize how stressful it is being admin, but still, if you can't do the job without fanning flames, take a break. We all are going to bump heads from time to time so we have to learn to not go overboard, to cool off before jumping back. It isn't necessary that we like everyone, just that we are able to work near them.

I work in a pressure cooker of a job, and all employees have been there for many years. We WILL tell each other to "fuck off" or worse from time to time, and actually get in an occasional yelling match. Including me. This doesn't happen every every month or every quarter, but once or twice a year. Then we go do our jobs. There, everyone is a type A personality and damn good at what they do, just high strung... similar to here in a way. Is it ideal? It depends on your perspective. 95% of our competitors have gone out of business in the last 5 years, so I tend to think that "excellence" requires a degree of friction. The key is knowing how to move forward and not holding a grudge against the world or an individual. We aren't islands, we need each other even if we bump heads sometimes. It's true at work and at wiki. Dennis 2¢ 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What it boils down to

Since others felt this discussion needed to be re-opened and hashed out here, then here is my take on HiLo48 (and others') complaint: Some want to be able to "pour shit" (using HiLo's term) on other editors whom they have identified as POV-pushers (or whatever else other content infraction they have identified) rather than follow civility policies and use the proper forums to settle content disputes. This "some" do not like civility policies because it's against their preferred communication style (at least online style) and wastes their time by asking them to use what they see as "drama boards" to settle content disputes. And then, to add insult to injury, some admins actually have the gonads to enforce the policies. However, this "some" needs to take the next step and accept that Misplaced Pages is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles, and not just those who thrive, or at least get by, in the hostile, it's-ok-to-tell-someone-to-fuck-off environment that it's been for... how many years now? It's a primarily (not completely, but primarily) alpha male way of communicating. It's inappropriate for a diverse community. It needs to be left behind in the frontier that was the early Internet landscape, and a new model needs to be adopted for a more diverse, civilized, professional, and welcoming community. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• A quote from De Es Schwertberger comes to mind: When two people come together, a strange phenomenon occurs. Each tries to establish superiority over the other. This is either accomplished by growing over the other, or cutting the other down. As a result, each develops defense mechanisms to prevent being cut down as well as improving its own state. Virtually all of human attention is involved in this process. It has become so complex that the original state of human oneness has been quite forgotten. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• When you say that Misplaced Pages now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility, you are defining a smaller community, you are excluding those that built the place when it was a more rough and tumble place. In general, it is more refined than than, speaking as someone who's been here long enough to remember. No one wants more incivility and no one is endorsing the idea of allowing person attacks, but what you are talking about is changing Misplaced Pages into an intolerant place, a place where you conform to a Politically Correct definition of "civility" or you leave. And saying that being brusk is an "alpha male" way to communicate is brazenly sexist and doesn't belong here. Dennis 2¢ 17:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How on earth, or better, why, do you leap from "Misplaced Pages is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles" (what I wrote) to "Misplaced Pages now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility" (how you "paraphrased"? it)?

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that I or others are trying to change Misplaced Pages into an "intolerant place." Or a "Politically Correct" place (with the aggressive capital "P" and "C" to try to belittle what I'm talking about). This has been said elsewhere: it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace. And when you break those rules, you get a warning. You might even get two or three warnings. But after a point, you are expelled from the community. And don't lob that "sexist" bomb at me again. Read the works of experts if you want proof that primarily (not completely, but primarily, as I said above) alpha males behave this way. Here's one for you:

• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fighting For Our Lives". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 3-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Boys Will Be Boys". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 166-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fast Forward: Technologically Enhanced Aggression". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 250-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (section, "Gender on the Internet")

Question: Is this project interested in retaining ALL good editors, or only those who are a good fit with the existing, and yes, sexist, culture? Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Lightbreather, it doesn't boil down to that at all. I say that occasionally using language that's in the Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words is far less uncivil than being a POV pushing, power abusing Administrator who stalks other editors he would like to get rid of, but never uses one of those Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words. By singling out one (IMHO) ultimately quite harmless form of stronger interpersonal communication, you effectively condone the other, and hence lose some of my respect. It's NOT helping to build a better encyclopaedia when you ignore the POV pushing. And please don't make this is a male vs female thing. It's simply not. It was a female co-worker in a job I was doing around ten years ago who suggested I should swear more in order to fit in better. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a set of approved words. You guys keep hauling out the same weary arguments, but they're non-arguments. Also, define "occasional." Is it like "civility" itself, and cannot be defined, or enforced? How many times have you used "fuck" in one form or another in the past 30 days? And you don't get to decide who's POV-pushing and then "pour shit" on them: judge, jury, and executioner. You use the approved processes - which do not include calling people names or otherwise demeaning them. You give your evidence. They give theirs. If you can't work it out, you start moving up the DR chain. You don't get shortcuts because you've logged "x" edits, or have the approval of Tom-, Dick-, or Harry-Admin who's been rubbing elbows with you on Misplaced Pages for "x" years. It might be a formula for retaining certain old-school approved editors, but not new, green, and diverse editors. Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, HiLo48, by your own logic, if it's OK for you to single out, harass, and attack those whom you have decided are POV pushing (which there is a policy about), then it's equally OK for others (admins or not) to single out, harass, and attack you for incivility (which there is also a policy about) if those others have decided you are being uncivil. (I don't believe harassing and attacking is ever justified, but it seems to be OK for you and some of your admin and non-admin peers - as long as whomever is doing the harassing and attacking has "x" edits or "x" years of contributions under his belt.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, as long as you want to claim that the problems are "alpha males" and that all the crude language is the fault of these crude men, you aren't going to find much of an audience here. We judge by each other's deads, we don't stereotype people. At Misplaced Pages, each of us has a contribs history. That is how we judge the contributions of each other. Misplaced Pages is a meritocracy, and as such, your claims that all men are bad and crude or most of the aggression at Misplaced Pages is because we are "alpha males" simply don't belong here. It literally fits WP:SYNTH. More importantly, it is sexist, pure and simple, and it is unwanted here. If we start tolerating sexism against men, then we have to tolerate it against women and we already have enough sexism here without you adding yet more. Take it somewhere else, preferably off Misplaced Pages. Dennis 2¢ 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. I never said "all men are bad or crude" (nor by extension that all women are good and refined). Are you not considering what I am saying, or are you simply trying to shut me down quickly without a legitimate argument? Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right there is a good example, implying I'm shutting you down for some reason other than your arguments are invalid. What reason would you imply? When you blame the problems at Misplaced Pages based solely on someone's gender, then you aren't part of the solution, you have become part of the problem. It is still sexist, it is just coming from the other direction. So no, we absolutely are not going to get into a "the aggression and swearing at Misplaced Pages is because of alpha males" discussion. That doesn't address the issue of under-representation of women at Misplaced Pages, and just drives a wedge into the issue, forcing people to agree with you or be on the "wrong side" of the issue. Dennis 2¢ 19:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Twisting my words, as you've done at least three times in this discussion (the latest by saying that my argument is that Misplaced Pages's problems are based "solely on someone's gender" - which is not my argument) isn't an argument on your part: it's a straw man. The truth is, you and some others like you don't want to talk about even the possibility that incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace is an editor recruitment or retention problem because it threatens the environment that the agonist base is defending. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to address one little point here that I haven't addressed and my words speak for themselves: If you want to turn the civility policy into something akin to what it would be at work, you have an uphill battle. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be work, and if the civility policy here was the same as the proverbial Fortune 500 company, half the people would leave. This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, not work. As for using "obscenities" in "mixed company", I'm literally dumbfounded, mouth agape. You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another, which is in fact, sexist. How you don't see that, I have no idea. So yes, any policy that says we treat men and women differently, I would be against, and I wouldn't be alone. You never get equality when you are asking for special treatment. More importantly, there is no way to tell gender, or even verify it. You are asking editors to think about gender instead of being "color blind" to it. No, I'm not for that. That isn't something we would promote here either, special treatment for a class of editor, nor changing civility standards to "office expectations". WER is not a political body and not the place to try to promote these things. Dennis 2¢ 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose mixed company may be simplified to mean mixed gender, but I'm talking about more than gender. Gender plays a part because GENERALLY men and women tend to communicate and approach conflict differently. You're hearing treat men and women differently... as the way men treat each other is the norm and to treat women differently is to coddle them or some such. I'm saying that to treat each other in the agonistic way that one encounters on Misplaced Pages is GENERALLY the way men treat each other and is not necessarily the norm or better than other ways. Lacking any other evidence about whether someone is male, female, black, white - mixed company - we should be more civil with each other, not less. We should not assume that being aggressive and calling names is the norm and treating anyone else differently is coddling. Who made your way of communicating with your (mostly male) peers the norm that others should "live up" to? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another: No! I am saying we should treat everyone the same - with a higher standard of civility (such as our policy dictates) and not a lower one (which is what is actually enforced). Your way of treating each other is confrontational, often to obscene levels, and that not does not make for a more welcoming and productive environment. It makes for a hostile environment that only some of those who edit here, or who would like to edit, are able to feel welcome and to be productive in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In five years I haven't noticed a sexist culture here at all but I don't go looking for it. I have noticed pov pushers, coi editors, editors who can't write a sensible sentence, editors who don't/won't/can't comprehend what they read, overlinkers and triviamongers. Perhaps that is because I usually concentrate on content not talk pages. I find it difficult to tolerate talk-page politicians, long-winded, droning-on arguments about who is and isn't civil or what is and isn't right. I don't much care for dragging up past history or picking over old wounds, settling old scores, snivelling about perceived wrongs, folks who attack others without even noticing they're doing it, pages and pages of rehashing arguments and having the last word. I can/could do/probably have done some/all of those things and more but I am not perfect and am aware when I do it. This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave. As far as attracting new editors I'd steer them right away from talk pages and encourage them towards content. Content beats politics anyday in my book and if the balance swings towards politics that's when I'll look for the exit. J3Mrs (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave: Read the discussion that precedes this "What it all boils down to" section break. Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, AFTER I told you about the woman who recommended that I swear more in the workplace in order to better fit in, you have said silly things like "it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace" and "incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace". Perhaps your standards are not so common after all. (And I'd be interested in how diverse your own experience really is.) You are ignoring others' points. You are not discussing. You are telling us, without considering others' words at all. Who is doing the harassing? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One woman told you to swear more at work in order to fit in better, and that's all the evidence you need to believe that all around the English-speaking world, the way people conduct business together in the most collegial way is to swear. Have you read none of the evidence that has been presented at multiple forums indicating that this is NOT true? Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, isn't it interesting how this discussion has turned from you, poor HiLo48, being harassed by an admin, to maybe the problem is not the same tired arguments you guys keep throwing out? If you have a problem with someone in particular - take your evidence to the appropriate forum. If it's about editor retention, I'm suggesting you guys might be neglecting a problem. Not only neglecting, but aggresively pushing it away whenever the possibility is broached. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL would likely be the best place, for this civility topic. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear God... would you not say males are intrinsically and terminally uncivil? What can be done? If God is female will she not severely punish every last one of them? Should we try to punish them all right now, or should we allow her justice to unfold in her own time? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some notes:

• alphabetically Dennis Brown, HiLo48 and Lightbreather are all making true statements; but they're not entirely true.
• Because we are diverse, we have to accept that our experiences are not universal. e.g According to this CNN , it is concurrently true that "In some professions cursing is accepted and can even help you fit in to an environment," and "Constantly using foul language, however, can make it difficult to fit into a professional environment," This produces a conundrum for Misplaced Pages ... how do we accommodate editors from all types of environments?
• I read Tannen's You Just Don't Understand when it came out (24 years ago???) -- great read, and greatly helped my communication skills.
• Per Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal informal mechanisms are significantly more important than the formal.

Though "one formal mechanism was found important—the policies" (except, apparently, when it comes to civility?) Lightbreather (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per ]"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Misplaced Pages and broaden its coverage." That's a WP:RS, not synth. And while, of course, a single source does not NPOV article make, the fact that that's published perception of Misplaced Pages should be cause for concern.
• Many of the adjective used above to describe other discussion participants writing, e.g. "alpha male," "sexist," "tired," "politically correct," "twisted" and more. Since this is supposed to be editor retention, not another drama and/or dispute resolution board, can we focus on trying to find what points we agree on, and work on building common ground -- that is, a win-win. Or is hopeless, and we can have either one segment of the potential editing population, or the other, but not both? NE Ent 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When someone comes here in frustration, and others jump in with blame, that is what you get. Pointing fingers, either at individuals or genders, is outside of what we do here. In the meantime, I was getting real Editor Retention work done via email, not so ironically, with an established yet unhappy female editor. That isn't jabbering about theory, that is actual practice. Dennis 2¢ 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter. I'm getting frustrated again, and when I get frustrated I sometimes tell people to fuck off. I won't this time. But I'm still frustrated. I cannot agree with someone who thinks words she disapproves of are a bigger problem than badly behaved Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: "The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter." HiLo48, what you are hearing is NOT what I have said or am saying. Please don't make me out to be saying things that I'm not, or "pushing" something that I'm not. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting is clear- some contributers to this page are trying to address the serious issue of editor retention and others are trying to pour petrol on flames. I have always viewed CIVILITY as an extreme POV that wierdly Misplaced Pages chooses to support not to ban. I tolerate editors who change my spelling and remove 'u' where my dictionary tells me they are needed. I cannot understand why anyone would not tolerate me using a 'u'. I accept their language code, and they accept mine. Some of the terms that upset the contributers here are used as terms of endearment in places I have worked. You are not going to retain editors if you put your POV before the project and insist that a large portion of the world are untouchables because there language code is different from yours.

I concede that it can be a bit astonishing when you find that the language your mother would not let you use- is common parlance in a new social environment, but if you aren't familiar with those contexts (Linguistic insecurity)- then you sit back, listen and learn- you don't make a fool of yourself by revealing you ignorance. There is an interest C- class article Register (sociolinguistics) that partially explains the phenonoma but it still requires work. I personally come from a socio-economic group that would look stupid writing raw anglo-saxon four-letter words- and a little surprised to find ex-Etonian Government ministers using it comfortably and un-threateningly with senior civil servants- and to hear it used between silks in the Inns of court. They changed register when addressing the public. I had to address my POV of what was normal to take on board this new fact.

So can we read the links I have provided, examine our POVs and see if the Civility page needs to be altered. Then get this thread back on focus and articles created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I last posted here I have visited a country pub here in Australia. Males and females were present in roughly equal numbers. It wasn't a down market gathering. One mature aged gentleman walked and said to another "How are ya, ya silly old cunt?". Many heard it. Nobody was offended. Words don't hurt. It's the meaning that matters. POV pushing, badly behaved, bullying Admins, however, are another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Try the word in my presence bucko, it won't go as smoothly as your experience. Dreadstar ☥ 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand why Australian rules football is only played in Australia. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty tolerant when it comes to strong language, but that is a word we need to avoid at almost all costs. I understand that in the UK and Australia, the word is offensive to many, but not as much as the US, but still, it needs to be avoided at Misplaced Pages. To me, that isn't even about gender (although from my experience, women do take being called a cunt with a more violent reaction here state-side). I see the word from time to time and strongly discourage it, as a simple sensitivity to the huge number of people it DOES offend. Where I grew up, "cunt" was much, much worse a word than "fuck", and it still is to me. If for no other reason than it has been used as a weapon against women and is so offensive to so many. Kind of like how a black man might call another black man "nigga", but we don't do that here. If it slips out, I can accept a heart felt apology and just move on without a blown up drama-fest, but seriously, it needs to be avoided. Even if it isn't an insult in your home town, at some point you have to compromise a bit and avoid things that you *know* really hit the bone with other users in other countries, just out of respect. Dennis 2¢ 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  America is a strange place, a mystery to many of us. I have never seen or heard a woman being called a cunt; if that's something you routinely do in the US then you should indeed stop it. Just as WP should stop calling men dicks. Or is there some kind of double standard in play? If you can provide me with a rational explanation of why it's OK to call someone a dick but not a cunt then you'll win a coconut. Eric Corbett 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Although I love coconut, I probably won't be winning one today. The best I can offer you is "tradition". That is what decided "shit" was a bad word and "feces" was a good one. I'm very aware that word acceptability is dynamic, just as calling someone "retarded" or "negro" was at one time acceptable. American's take the word "fuck" much more seriously (and nip slips on TV as well, collectively we are prudes, are we not?). The terms "dick" and "cunt" are not on par in the US, I'm just not smart enough to say why. I do know that as a child, calling someone a "dick" would have gotten my mouth slapped, but even uttering "cunt" would have drawn the kind of retribution that they put parents in jail for nowadays: I literally would have been beaten. It is just a cultural thing, just as all curse/swear words are cultural things, and on this side of the pond, most of the 330 million consider "cunt" as #1 on the list. I'm offering an opinion on the wisdom of it, just saying that really is how it is, nationwide, for the majority of people. That doesn't justify a drama-fest, hanging, banning or even groveling, just a sincere "I'm sorry if you were offended" will suffice, and preferably, avoidance of the term simply out of respect because you know it offends most yanks, and in particular, female yanks. I won't be a hard ass about it, I'm just saying it really should be avoided. I understand it might slip from time to time, but we are all wordsmithy enough to find better alternatives the rest of the time. I don't want a policy around it and it doesn't require you agree with the logic behind it, just understand that it really does upset a number of female yanks, many of which have been on the receiving end of that word by piece of shit man. It is used by some as a hammer against women here. Dennis 2¢ 22:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well it isn't used as a hammer against women here in the UK, in Australia, or in any other English-speaking countries that I'm aware of. It's just a word. Eric Corbett 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen. I'm quitting you guys. So carry on, chip chip and cheerio, or whatever. Maybe a smarter woman than I will come along and explain this in a way that you can "get." Or maybe a smarter man will figure out how to make the importance of this to recruiting and retaining a diverse group of editors. But as long as you're happy with 85% to 90% men, and a style of "discussing" that these men (and 10% to 15% of women) are OK with, who cares, right? Just so long as you don't have to change anything about your own behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to quit then quit, if you don't, then don't make a song and dance about it. And above all all don't assume that you're in any way smarter than those who disagree with you, because I can assure you that you're not. Not by a long way. Eric Corbett 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominees require seconds

Editor of the Week seeks to recognize underappreciated content contributors for their outstanding contributions. There are currently two nominees @ Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations that await seconding. We are always concerned that we maintain our queue of accepted nominations at a "Don't worry" level. Do you have someone who fits the criteria to be Editor of the Week? If so, consider nominating them here. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:GoodDay for his quick response. The ink wasn't even dry on my request and he answered the call for a second. As usual, we can always use a few more nominations. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Main page, Why do editors leave? question

I'm new to the project. I've been reading the main page. I'd like to do a few things.

1. I'd like to add dates to the WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Misplaced Pages items.
2. If possible, I'd like to add a brief reason why those editors left. All voluntarily? Were any blocked or banned first, which led to their leaving?
3. Question: That page is called "Discovered reasons given for leaving Misplaced Pages"; what does "discovered" mean in this context?
4. The WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors questionnaire page: It begins, It has been suggested that we contact specific individual editors who have retired as to what circumstances contributed to their leaving the project. Did the suggestion come about as a result of a project discussion? (A link maybe?)
5. Which "specific individual editors" are or were contacted? All editors with more than "x" edits who were not identified as puppets or vandals?
6. Is there or has there ever been any focus on retaining women editors? If not, I'd like to propose that, and I'd be happy to spearhead such an effort, though I may need help implementing my ideas.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to check the archives, much of that is outdated. As for "why someone leaves", we seldom get a clean, simple answer, and we have tried contacting people. It is too subjective. That is one reason most of that is outdated. For the most part, the focus here is on general issues, not individuals. If an individual lands here, we try to help, but we don't actively seek individuals as a Project. That said, many (including myself) actively watch a number of editors who contribute a great deal and who are at risk, and mentor or offer support. That isn't exactly a Project project, just something a lot of us do on our own.
• As to women, check the archives, as there has been some discussion. Again, that is more an individual thing than Project thing, but a number of us go out of our way to attract women for adminship in particular. Our Editor of the Week program has helped us find a few admin, half of them women. The big problem with women and Misplaced Pages isn't retention as much as getting women to start editing here to begin with. That is beyond the scope of WER, and the responsibility of the Foundation to attract more women. Culturally speaking, this isn't simple. This is compounded by the fact that not everyone volunteers their gender, so we really don't know everyone's gender, and to assume that women are more or less likely to volunteer their gender isn't supported by any evidence. So many of us do put more effort with retaining women editors, but as individuals. As a Project, we try to stay neutral and focus on policy changes and tools for everyone. Dennis 2¢ 17:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since I started the WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Misplaced Pages page, let me respond to your first 3 questions. The page came about because of a discussion back in mid 2012 about why editors leave. By chance I had been saving some because I thought that the reasons editors gave on their way out the door were important. The When Who and What were not Important. Only the Why! The "discovered" only means that in my travels in WikiWorld I discovered and saved them. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Reasons Editors Leave (There are two sections with the same title)and other pertinent discussions there. WER, from the beginning, has been concerned with editors that leave. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that is good. Would you mind putting a date of some sort on the reasons? I do think it's important because what's going on in the community (from Misplaced Pages on up to WMF) does (or can) impact the individual editor's working environment. Who? No, of course anonymity is important. However, if an editor identifies primarily as a female, that could be useful when studying the reasons editors leave. Why? That is important. Whether someone left voluntarily, or if a ban/block preceded their leaving are important! Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, we don't list blocked editors. Or shouldn't be. That isn't the same as voluntarily leaving the project. Blocked editors would be outside the scope of what we can do. Dennis 2¢ 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory serves you well. Every effort was made to exclude editors that were blocked or banned when they left. I'm not sure if any were added since I last stopped there but I don't think so. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe any were added. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about it... I AM quitting

I'll take a day or two to wrap up some things I'd like to do before I turn off the lights and lock up, so to speak, but I AM quitting. No more thinking about, as I have dozens of times in the past. Among the things I'd like to do: add something to the "Discovered" reasons for leaving Misplaced Pages. I hope it'll be allowed to stay, but since it will focus on civility, I'm curious to see if it will be allowed to stay. I may drop by here over the next couple of days as I'm wrapping up elsewhere. That's all for now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting read: Simonite, Tom (22 October 2013). "The Decline of Misplaced Pages". MIT Technology Review.. And an interesting quote from that read. (My husband shared the article with me last year. Kind of a foreshadowing, I guess.)

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Misplaced Pages and broaden its coverage.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather that you didn't retire. Use me as an example for hanging around. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had this page watchlisted for a long time, and this is the first time I ever noticed that "discovered" section. Do us a favor @Lightbreather and put it in your own file, so everyone can find it, maybe User:Lightbreather/Reasons for leaving Misplaced Pages, with a link to it on your user page. Put in a lot of diffs, so everyone can see who twisted the knife. —Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• WikiProject Editor Retention articles